According to Khabar Online, the more important question is this: if a war does occur—a war that many actors, even at the highest levels of power, describe as “inevitable”—would it produce any tangible gains for the country at all? Or is what lies ahead not a decisive war, but rather a series of limited, harassing, precision, and standoff operations carried out by both sides?
Under the most likely scenario, this would not be a classic, front-line war. Instead, the dominant form would be an indirect, primarily aerial confrontation. Within this framework, a key question arises: would such a conflict fall under the category of asymmetric warfare? And more importantly, what would its consequences be for governance and social cohesion? Would it strengthen national solidarity, or further deepen existing internal fractures?
Raising these questions transparently is unavoidable—not to instill fear, but to clarify a basic reality: what level of cost, and what kind of trade-offs, society and the decision-making system would ultimately be forced to accept. A second major concern relates to the economic consequences of a potential air war. Could such a conflict improve macroeconomic conditions, or would it instead further devastate the microeconomy and people’s livelihoods?
In a war that lacks a front-line logic or ground advances, the main pressure—both in attack and in defense—would fall directly on infrastructure and on the everyday lives of civilians. In this context, assessing the country’s defensive capabilities becomes doubly important. Do claims about the simultaneous enhancement of Iran’s missile capabilities and the strengthening of Israel’s air defense systems actually align with battlefield realities? In particular, how realistic and operational is the claim that Israel has equipped its defense systems with low-cost laser technologies to intercept missiles?
The key question is whether, if such systems are deployed alongside conventional air defense layers, the destructive power of Iran’s long-range missiles would be meaningfully reduced—and whether the balance of deterrence would shift as a result.
Another issue concerns the role of regional diplomacy. Since the 12-day war, has Iran been able to reduce the cooperation—or at least the tolerance—of regional countries regarding the use of their airspace for hostile operations? If another air attack were to occur, would regional conditions remain the same as before, or have new variables entered the equation?
Finally, if confrontation were to erupt again, what would be the list of targets? Would critical infrastructure, energy facilities, and economic centers be struck—targets whose costs are borne directly by ordinary people? And on the other side, if a retaliatory attack were carried out, what would its target priorities be?
Clear answers to these questions—or at least an honest articulation of them—are a prerequisite for rational decision-making. The question that people continue to live with is simple yet heavy: is another war on the horizon, and if so, is there still a path to avoid it, or are we truly facing an unavoidable situation?
Your Comment